政府採購法第85條之1第2項規定:「前項調解屬廠商申請者,機關不得拒絕;工程採購經採購申訴審議委員會提出調解建議或調解方案,因機關不同意致調解不成立者,廠商提付仲裁,機關不得拒絕」,本條即所謂「強制仲裁」之規定。學說與實務針對本條規定是否有違反憲法第16條訴訟權、第7條平等權之保障,以及有無牴觸權力分立原則之憲法爭議有所討論。此外,機關得否聲請釋憲則牽涉到公法人是否享有基本權利能力之問題。 本文擬從第二章政府採購行為之法律性質談起,並於第三章全面且詳細地介紹政府採購法第85條之1第2項之規定;第四章則討論公法人基本權利能力之問題,並提出本文對於機關在本件中是否具有基本權利能力之看法;第五章則提出本文對於系爭條文是否違憲之論述與見解,並於第六章提出本文之結論與建議。
According to paragraph 2 of Article 85-1 of the government procurement act, in the event that the application for mediation referred to in the preceding paragraph is made by the supplier, the entity may not object to such application. In the event that the unsuccessful mediation of construction work due to the entity does not agree with proposal or resolution for mediation proposed by CRBGP, the entity may not object to the arbitration filed by the supplier. We call paragraph 2 of Article 85-1 of the government procurement act “compulsory arbitration”. Many argue that it violates the Taiwanese Constitution, includes the right of access to the court, the equal protection of the law, and the doctrine of separation of powers. In addition, the issue of the entity petition to Judicial Yuan involves with public legal person’s subject of constitutional rights. The content of chapter 2 discusses the legal nature of government procurement, and I introduce Article 85-1 of the government procurement act in chapter 3. Chapter 4 focuses on public legal person’s right to petition to Judicial Yuan, and bring up the opinion about whether the entity have constitutional rights in this case. And then, chapter 5 talks about the constitutionality of compulsory arbitration of Article 85-1. Chapter 6 is conclusion and suggestion.